Cat Capsizes off Kangaroo Island

[simonmd]

Originally Posted by sneuman

simonmd: I base it on the laws of probability. Right now, there are relatively few catamarans/trimarans as a percentage of the entire "cruising fleet". As there are more multis, more of them will come to a bad end as a percentage of all mishaps.

Eh? You seem to be contradicting yourself there, you say there are few cats/tris and then say there are more multis. Or are you saying IF there were more multis then there would be more accidents? If thats the case then again, based on what? It would be true to say that if there were more boats / cars / bikes, whatever, there would be more accidents, simple fact of life. However, it's the PERCENTAGE that's relavent and there is a no firm evidence that either is more dangerous overall.

I would even be happy to say that, in the defence of monohulls, it's likely that there maybe more accidents / injurys because a monohull is more likely to be used in extreem environments / situations, Singlehanded circumnavigations, ocean racing, etc. Not because of their design, just their use. Cruising cats are generaly used for more 'gentile' passtimes and enjoy safer waters.

She draws the conclusion that the rate of mono sinkings is only "slightly" more than catamarans.

And your point is? Even if we aggree that there is no real difference between the accident/injury rate between multi and monohulls (which i'm happy to do for the sake of argument) then it still makes your previous statement (more multis increases the chances of capsizes, collisions, etc.) completely unfounded.

What i'm trying to say is that i'm not siding with either as they both have their merits and both have their disadvantages. It's the design of the CAPTAIN that is usualy the problem!

[sneuman]

Originally Posted by simonmd

Eh? You seem to be contradicting yourself there, you say there are few cats/tris and then say there are more multis. Or are you saying IF there were more multis then there would be more accidents? If thats the case then again, based on what? It would be true to say that if there were more boats / cars / bikes, whatever, there would be more accidents, simple fact of life. However, it's the PERCENTAGE that's relavent and there is a no firm evidence that either is more dangerous overall.

I would even be happy to say that, in the defence of monohulls, it's likely that there maybe more accidents / injurys because a monohull is more likely to be used in extreem environments / situations, Singlehanded circumnavigations, ocean racing, etc. Not because of their design, just their use. Cruising cats are generaly used for more 'gentile' passtimes and enjoy safer waters.

And your point is? Even if we aggree that there is no real difference between the accident/injury rate between multi and monohulls (which i'm happy to do for the sake of argument) then it still makes your previous statement (more multis increases the chances of capsizes, collisions, etc.) completely unfounded.

What i'm trying to say is that i'm not siding with either as they both have their merits and both have their disadvantages. It's the design of the CAPTAIN that is usualy the problem!

I've been quite clear and have not contradicted myself. Restating the obvious in this case is clearly of no use.

[smj]

When we bought our first cat in 1992 Lloyds of London considered the multihull a better risk than a monohull. I don't know if things have changed since then but that says a lot. It's true as the number of multihulls increase the probability that the oceans will be littered with more overturned multihulls is a hazard.

[simonmd]

Originally Posted by sneuman

I've been quite clear and have not contradicted myself. Restating the obvious in this case is clearly of no use.

In my first paragraph I asked you a question to clarify what you said, you've either contradicted yourself of phrased what you ment to say poorly.

Either way, i'm not getting into a personal debate, you seem like an inteligent person who has a point of view that he belives in. I'm just saying, provide either facts or resoning to back up your claim.

SMJ has provided yet more evidence that they are statisticaly safer. It's the insurance industry above all others that would be better to judge and the fact that they consider cats to be lower risk surly proves something. If cats were falling over all the time across the world, then theyd be uninsurable!

Just to clarify, i've got no bias here, i own a monohull powerboat for heavens sake! I just don't like it when people jump on the band wagon putting out wild ideas with NO evidence to back it up. It's not helpfull or constructive.

Like I said, as with ANY devise, the biggest flaw is always the operator.

[Southern Star]

Simonmd, its always nice to have someone without a vested interest in catamarans who is nevertheless able to see the tendancy shown in this (and other) threads, of some monohullers (and apparently, one multi-huller) to make sweeping statements/draw adverse conclusions about the safety of catamarans without the facts (or in this case, with stated 'facts' that are untrue) to support them. There have been some sinkings of monohulls reported of late on this site and I, for one, have not attempted to post derogatory comments about monohulls as a result of the same; I suspect that most (if not all) multihullers on this site have also refrained from making such inflammatory posts, or from attempting to go from the particular to an indictment of all monohulls.

With respect to sneuman's post, however, I think that he really was only trying to suggest that as the proportion of multis increases, so too will the proportion of reported incidents involving multis. Hard to argue with, although I am not sure that it takes us anywhere. Lets face it, if 10 years ago mulithulls made up only 2 per cent of the cruising boats and they now make up 10 per cent, then one would expect the proportion of reports of hulls being holed etc. to increase in a similar way - ie, they should now make up 10 per cent of such cases. Or perhaps I missed Sneuman's point.....

Brad

[simonmd]

Indeed, sounds resonable. A bit obvious and as helpfull as saying 'if there were no multihulls then there would be no multihull accidents'. You can argue that's a true and valid statement but not exactly helpfull!

I've always enjoyed going against the grain and am now strongly thinking about buying a cat just to be different!

[44'cruisingcat]

Originally Posted by simonmd

Lol. yes I understand that but it's not the first time thay've taken a bashing (verbal, not 20ton container) but it never seems to be the other way round. I was wondering if there were a few feelings of inadequasy from some people?

Makes me wonder too. TBH I rarely even look at the monohull forum, I'm really not very interested in them. Been there, done that, learned from the experience, and now own a cat.

But it's always surprising to me just how many monohull people find it neccessary to post (usually in a derogatory way) in the multihull forum.

Why? If someone doesn't own a multi, and clearly doesn't EVER want to own a multi, why would they even look at this forum?

[tuskie]

Originally Posted by 44'cruisingcat

Why? If someone doesn't own a multi, and clearly doesn't EVER want to own a multi, why would they even look at this forum?

Ah 44c, the imponderables of the human psychy!

I believe our monohull devotee brothers and sisters feel an uncontrollable need to warn us of our impending doom, lest we venture out in unproven craft as a result of our ignorance.

Back to the thread. The number of floating containers off the Australian coast (perhaps every coast?) is a real concern. The worst ones are the insulated refrigerated ones: they just won't sink no matter how rusty.
I saw one while fishing off Moololaba, Queensland after being alerted via a VHF securitay call giving it's coordinates. It had obviously been in the water many months and was bobbing in the low swell. The scary thing was that it would completely submerge for 20 seconds and then surface by over a metre.
It was easy to miss seeing it despite careful watchkeeping.

One thing though, they are good Fish Attracting Devices. I recall getting a few dolphinfish (dorado) from under the beast.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by sneuman

I've seen this before and, quite frankly, am rather underwhelmed. There's no raw data and the writer herself qualifies it by admitting the data is dodgy. She draws the conclusion that the rate of mono sinkings is only "slightly" more than catamarans. Without providing rates or figures, she asserts that personal injuries and fatalities on monos are higher, but has no idea why.

It seems if the numbers were really that convincing, there ought to be more than this vague analysis to back them up.

There could be something there, and then again, maybe not. But as even the author of the above admits, it requires further study to draw any solid conclusions.

Lower booms on average and lower flies.....

[troppo]

Originally Posted by tuskie

. . . . The number of floating containers off the Australian coast (perhaps every coast?) is a real concern. The worst ones are the insulated refrigerated ones: they just won't sink no matter how rusty.
I saw one while fishing off Moololaba, Queensland after being alerted via a VHF securitay call giving it's coordinates. It had obviously been in the water many months and was bobbing in the low swell. The scary thing was that it would completely submerge for 20 seconds and then surface by over a metre.
It was easy to miss seeing it despite careful watchkeeping. . . . .

Now that is a worry. Hmm, just wondering about the contents of a once refrigerated container that has been without power for a few months. I wonder if pressure builds up inside? I would not like to put a hole in it. Phewwwy!

[DoubleWhisky]

Originally Posted by 44'cruisingcat

Why? If someone doesn't own a multi, and clearly doesn't EVER want to own a multi, why would they even look at this forum?

May be because some people are interested in sailing in general.
I do not own a yawl, I do not ever want to own a yawl, but I'm interested in them - they are SAILBOATS and I'm interested in SAILBOATS.
Close encounter with a container is possible for all sailboats and is interesting for all of us, I suppose.

And one more thing - the multi doesn't suit me. May be only now - never say never
But - You know - I like them... Fantastic machines. I also like Ferraris, even if I do not intend to buy one. My car suits me better - just because of four doors So I will keep looking at this forum, and will read some articles about Ferraris

[sneuman]

Originally Posted by Southern Star

Simonmd, its always nice to have someone without a vested interest in catamarans who is nevertheless able to see the tendancy shown in this (and other) threads, of some monohullers (and apparently, one multi-huller) to make sweeping statements/draw adverse conclusions about the safety of catamarans without the facts (or in this case, with stated 'facts' that are untrue) to support them. There have been some sinkings of monohulls reported of late on this site and I, for one, have not attempted to post derogatory comments about monohulls as a result of the same; I suspect that most (if not all) multihullers on this site have also refrained from making such inflammatory posts, or from attempting to go from the particular to an indictment of all monohulls.

With respect to sneuman's post, however, I think that he really was only trying to suggest that as the proportion of multis increases, so too will the proportion of reported incidents involving multis. Hard to argue with, although I am not sure that it takes us anywhere. Lets face it, if 10 years ago mulithulls made up only 2 per cent of the cruising boats and they now make up 10 per cent, then one would expect the proportion of reports of hulls being holed etc. to increase in a similar way - ie, they should now make up 10 per cent of such cases. Or perhaps I missed Sneuman's point.....

Brad

Thanks, Brad. That is exactly what I was (trying) to say.

[sneuman]

Originally Posted by 44'cruisingcat

Makes me wonder too. TBH I rarely even look at the monohull forum, I'm really not very interested in them. Been there, done that, learned from the experience, and now own a cat.

But it's always surprising to me just how many monohull people find it neccessary to post (usually in a derogatory way) in the multihull forum.

Why? If someone doesn't own a multi, and clearly doesn't EVER want to own a multi, why would they even look at this forum?

I resent the implication that I wouldn't ever want to own a multi. I have (past tense) owned a beach cat (Dart 15) and loved it - would love to have another one someday. Neither have I stated nor implied that I would never want a larger cat (I think I have stated on more than one occasion a fondness for the Wharram Tiki design and how ideal it might be for the shallows of, say, the Gulf of Thailand).

[sneuman]

Originally Posted by simonmd

Indeed, sounds resonable. A bit obvious and as helpfull as saying 'if there were no multihulls then there would be no multihull accidents'. You can argue that's a true and valid statement but not exactly helpfull!

I've always enjoyed going against the grain and am now strongly thinking about buying a cat just to be different!

On the contrary, I think it could be very instructive. An example:
The alleged superior performance of multis in a big storm is often illustrated by the takeout from the 1994 "Queen's Birthday Storm" near New Zealand.

The unofficial report tracks all the vessels who called in maydays, which happens to be more monos than multis. A few of those monos sank or were abandoned and none of the multis were lost. On the surface, it sounds like a smoking gun against monos, no?

BUT, the report doesn't list the breakout of the number of multis and monos that went through the storm. We know (according to the report) that there were many monos that made it safely through the storm without calling a mayday and we also know anecdotally that there were many more monos than multis cruising those grounds at that time.

SO, for all we know, it could be that every multi called a mayday and than only a small percentage of monos did. We might, therefore, be tempted to conclude that what that report shows is that multis get into trouble in big storms in much higher frequency than do monos.

The fact is that the relatively small number of multis (especially in 1994) skews the statistics and confounds the results. We can't really say what to conclude from that report.

As the numbers of multis vs. monos start to get closer to parity (and current trends suggest it's going in that direction), we'll know more, presumably.

[boatman61]

Hey Simon.... Here's an extermely sexy beast for you to look at....
Well I think it is..
Triton Yachts (Oriental, NC)&